Andrew Steinmann - ¿When Did Herod the Great Reign

8/12/2019 Andrew Steinmann - When Did Herod the Great Reign

1/29

Novum estamentum 51 (2009) 1-29 www.brill.nl/nt

When Did Herod the Great Reign?

Andrew E. SteinmannRiver Forest, Illinois

AbstractFor about 100 years there has been a consensus among scholars that Herod the Greatreigned from 37 to 4 . However, there have been several challenges to this consensusover the past four decades, the most notable being the objection raised by W.E. Filmer. Tis

paper argues that Herod most likely reigned from late 39 to early 1 , and that thisreconstruction of his reign can account for all of the surviving historical references to theevents of Herods reign more logically than the current consensus can. Moreover, the recon-struction of Herods reign proposed in this paper accounts for all of the datable evidencerelating to Herods reign, whereas the current consensus is unable to explain some of theevidence that it dismisses as ancient errors or that it simply ignores.

Keywords

Archelaus; Antipas; Herod the Great; Josephus; Philip; Schrer

Te dates for the reign of Herod seem to be well-established: He wasnamed king of Judea by the Romans in 40 , began his reign in Jerusa-lem after conquering the city in 37 and died in 4 . Tis is theconsensus of the majority of scholars, and has been for at least a century

since the publication of Schrers History of the Jewish People in the ime ofJesus Christ. Te logic for this position is as follows:1

1. Herod was named king by Antony and Octavian in the one hun-dred eighty-fourth Olympiad, the consuls being Gnaeus DomitiusCalvinus for the second time and Gaius Asinius Pollio.2he one

1) Emil Schrer,A History of the Jewish People in the ime of Jesus Christ, 5 vols. (New York:Scribners, 1896; reprint, revised G. Vermes and F. Millar, eds. 3 vols. in 4; Edinburgh:. and . Clark, 1973-1987) 1.281 n. 3; 1.2 84 n. 11; 1.327, n. 1.
http://www.brill.nl/nthttp://www.brill.nl/nt


2/29


3/29


4/29

4 A.E. Steinmann / Novum estamentum 51 (2009) 1-29

However, when using Josephus we must exercise caution, since it is welldocumented that he was not always accurate in his portrayal of events.Like many other ancient historians, he at times modified events to suit his

rhetorical and ideological purposes.16Josephus accounts especially need tobe examined when he reports speeches, which are not verbatim transcriptsof what was said, but often contain the historians account of what shouldhave been said, could have been said, or what the historian wanted to havebeen said given his ideological biases. In addition, when Josephus reportson peoples motives or is attempting to convince his audience of the rea-sons for a persons actions, he may well be embellishing the truth in order

to accomplish his rhetorical goal of persuading his readers to adopt hisview of events and their causes.

Nevertheless, there is one area in which everyone who attempts toreconstruct the chronology of Herods reign agrees: Josephus chronologi-cal notices are more-or-less reliable. Tis can been seen in that all chro-

16) Te literature on the subject is quite extensive. A modest list relating to historiographyis: Robert . Anderson, Josephus Accounts of emple Building: History, Literature orPolitics? Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Bible Societies 9 (1989)246-257; Harold W. Attridge, Josephus and His Works, inJewish Writings of the Secondemple Period, ed. Michael E. Stone (CRIN; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984) 185-232; Mir-iam Pucci Ben Zeev, Te Reliability of Josephus Flavius: Te Case of Hecataeus andManethos Accounts of Jews and Judaism: Fifteen Years of Contemporary Research (1974-1990),JSJ24 (1993) 215-234;Pieter J.J. Botha, History, Rhetoric and the Writings of

Josephus, Neot 31 (1997) 1-20; Magen Broshi, Te Credibility of Josephus, JJS 33(1982) 379-84; Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus inAncient Greek Authors, ed. Ward

W. Briggs (Dictionary of Literary Biography 176; Detroit: Gale Research, 1997) 234-240;Josephus (C.E. 37c. 100), in Te Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. William Horbury,

W.D. Davies, and John Sturdy (1999) 901-921; Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Te Valueof Josephus As a Historical Source, EvQ 15 (1943) 179-83; Eric D. Huntsman, TeReliability of Josephus: Can He Be rusted? inMasada and the World of the New estament,ed. John F. and John W. Welch Hall (BYU Studies; Provo, U: Brigham Young, 1997)

392-402; Steve Mason, Will the Real Josephus Please Stand Up? Biblical ArchaeologyReview23, 5 (1997) 58-68; Andre Paul, Flavius Josephus Antiquities of the Jews: An

Anti-Christian Manifesto, NS31 (1985) 473-480; essa Rajak, Te Sense of History inJewish Intertestamental Writing, in Crises and Perspectives: Studies in Ancient Near EasternPolytheism, Biblical Teology, Palestinian Archaeology and Intertestamental Literature, ed.

A.S. Van der Woude (OtSt; Leiden: Brill, 1986) 124-145; Donna R. Runnalls, TeRhetoric of Josephus, in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 300 BCE-

A.D. 400, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 737-754; Solomon Zeitlin, A Survey

of Jewish Historiography: From the Biblical Books to the Sefer ha-Kabbalah with SpecialEmphasis on Josephus,JQR59 (1969) 171-214.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0047-2212(1993)24L.215[aid=8596160]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0047-2212(1993)24L.215[aid=8596160]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0021-6682(1969)59L.171[aid=8596158]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0021-6682(1969)59L.171[aid=8596158]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0047-2212(1993)24L.215[aid=8596160]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0021-6682(1969)59L.171[aid=8596158]


5/29


6/29


Tis is confirmed by the Actian Games, which were founded by Augustusin honor of his victory at Actium and held on September 2 every fouryears. Josephus states that the census happened during the thirty-seventh

year of Caesars victory over Antony at Actium ( ). Sincethe first year after Actium ran from September 2, 31 to September 1,30 , the thirty-seventh year ran from September 2, 6 to September 1,7 . Tus, in this case Josephus was not counting inclusively, since one-third of the thirty-seventh year after Actium took place in 6 .

Moreover, Bernegger claims Josephus did not consistently use any one

convention of counting through his works.21Yet both the Schrer consen-sus and the challenge to it rely on Josephus consistently reckoning Herodsreign by the same method, whether that is inclusive or actual reckoning.o hold that Josephus was inconsistent undermines both attempts to dateHerods reign.

Troughout the discussion below, we need to keep in mind that muchdepends on whether Josephus was using inclusive or actual reckoning andthat, despite Berneggers protest, there is no firm evidence that Josephusused inclusive reckoning for the reigns of the high priests or anyone elseduring this period.

Problems with 40 BCEas the Starting Date for Herods Reign

Josephus describes the appointment of Herod as follows:22

Upon this, the senate was irritated, and Antony informed them further that it was totheir advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king. Tis seemed good toall the senators, and so they made a decree accordingly. Tis was the principal instanceof Antonys affection for Herod, that he not only procured him a kingdom which hedid not expect, (for he did not come with an intention to ask the kingdom for himself,

which he did not suppose the Romans would grant to him, who used to bestow it onsome of the royal family, but intended to desire it for his wifes brother, who wasgrandson by his father to Aristobulus, and to Hyrcanus by his mother,) but that heprocured it for him so suddenly, that he obtained what he did not expect, and departedout of Italy in as few as seven days in all. Tis young man Herod afterward took care

Actian year to 7/6 , he would agree with me that the thirty-second Actian year wouldhave been 6/7 .21) Bernegger, Herods Death, 529.22) Josephus,Ant.14.385-389.


7/29

When Did Herod the Great Reign? 7

to have slain, as we shall show in its proper place. But when the senate was adjourned,Antony and Caesar went out of the senate house, with Herod between them, and withthe consuls and other magistrates before them, in order to offer sacrifices, and to layup their decrees in the capitol. Antony also feasted Herod on the first day of his reign.Tus did this man receive the kingdom, having obtained it in the one hundred eighty-

fourth Olympiad, the consuls being Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus for the second time andGaius Asinius Pollio.

Te chronological information given by Josephus is problematic. Tere areat least three reasons to doubt Josephus chronology at this point:

1. he one hundred eighty-fourth Olympiad ended on June 30, 40 .However, Calvinus and Pollio were not appointed consuls until afterthe reaty of Brundisium on October 2, 40 .23hus, Josephusis in error.

2. Moreover, Appian contradicts Josephus. He mentions Herodsappointment by Antony, along with a number of other kings. Fromthe context, it is clear that Appian places Herods appointment in39 .24

3. Even Vermes and Millar in their edition of Schrer note someproblem with Josephus dating, since another passage in Josephusimplies that Herod did not journey to Rome until winter, makingthe earliest date for his appointment late 40 during the onehundred eighty-fifth Olympiad.25

Tus, Josephus notice of Herods appointment is somehow in error. EitherHerod was appointed late in 40 or sometime in 39 , but not in the firsthalf of 40 as Josephus Olympian synchronism would imply. RelyingonAntiquities14.389 to date the beginning of Herods reign is a dubiousproposition.

Filmer supplements this reasoning with other evidence.

It is agreed that Julius Caesar was murdered in 44 , and that his assassins weredefeated by Octavius Caesar and Antony at the battle of Philippi towards the end of

23) Edwards, Herodian Chronology, 30.24) Appian, Civil Wars5.8.75. Sections 69-76 cover the year 39 , which can be deter-mined by comparison to Dios Roman History.Tis was first noted by Filmer, Reign of

Herod, 285.25) Josephus,Ant.14.376; Schrer, History, 1.281 n. 3.


8/29


42 . Now Josephus mentions this battle and records that Antony then marchedinto Asia where he met and fell in love with Cleopatra. Tis must have been in 41 ,and he goes on to relate how Antony at this time appointed Herod and his brotherPhasaelius tetrarchs. It was two years after this, he says, after the Parthians had mean-

while conquered Syria, that they deposed Hyrcanus as high priest, and made Antigo-nus both king and high priest. wo years after 41 is 39 , and it was only thenthat Herod went to Rome where he interviewed Antony, and got himself appointedking in place of Antigonus. Once again Josephus does not support his own consulardates.26

Problems with 37 BCEas the Date for Herods Conquest of JerusalemAlthough Herod had been named king by the Romans, the Parthians hadplaced the Hasmonean Antigonus on the throne as king and high priestin Jerusalem. Tus, Herod had to raise an army and, with the help ofthe Romans, conquer Jerusalem and depose Antigonus. Tis was accom-plished three years later with the help of the Roman general Sossius. Jose-phus provides the following chronological notice connected with Herodsconquest:27

. . . this destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gal-lus were consuls in Rome on the one hundred eighty-fifth Olympiad, on the third month,on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned sincethat which befell the Jews under Pompey, for the Jews were taken by him on the sameday. Tis was after twenty-seven years time. So when Sossius had dedicated a crown of

gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem, and carried Antigonus with him inbonds to Antony. However, Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prisonby Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause tobe heard by the senate. He and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royalblood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons, however,to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himselfoffended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herods fear of this it was that he,by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigo-

nus slain, which, if it were done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did thegovernment of the Hasmoneans cease, one hundred twenty-six years after it was first set up.Tis family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility oftheir stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actionstheir ancestors had performed for our nation. But these men lost the governmentby their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who

26) Filmer, Reign of Herod, 287; Josephus,Ant.14.301, 324, 330.27) Josephus,Ant.14.487-491.


9/29


was of no more than a common family and of no eminent extraction, but one that wassubject to other kings. Tis is what history tells us was the end of the Hasmoneanfamily.

Te consular year and Olympiad given by Josephus indicates that Herodtook Jerusalem in 37 . It was the Day of Atonement (the fast) on 10ishri in the Jewish calendar, but the third month (September) in theGreek calendar. However, there are two other data given by Josephus inthis passage that contradict this:

1. Jerusalem fell to Herod exactly twenty-seven years after it fell toPompey. Since Pompey took Jerusalem on the Day of Atonementin 63 , the fall of Jerusalem to Herod should be placed on theDay of Atonement in 36 .28

2. Josephus states that shortly after Jerusalems fall Antigonus was takento Antony, who had him executed. his ended 126 years of the gov-ernment set up by the Hasmoneans.29As far as I know, no one has

taken this datum into account. If Herod took Jerusalem and thenpersuaded Antony to execute Antigonus in 37 as the Schrerconsensus holds, then the government set up by the Hasmoneansshould have started in 163 . However, no such government ismentioned in any of the sources. On the other hand, if Herod tookJerusalem in 36 , the Hasmonean government should have beenfounded in 162 . In fact, this is exactly what is reported in both

Josephus and 1 Maccabees. In this year Antiochus V made peacewith Judas Maccabeus: . . . the king sent to Judas, and to thosethat were besieged with them, and promised to give them peace,and to permit them to make use of, and live according to the laws

28) See also the discussion in Filmer, Reign of Herod, 285-286. Filmer believes that Jose-

phus is stating that Jerusalem not only fell on the feast day to both Pompey and Herod,but also on the same day of the week. If he is correct, then Jerusalem must have fallen in36 , as this was not possible in 37 , the date proffered by the Schrer consensus.29)Ant.17.162 states that Herod claimed that he benefited the Jews by rebuilding theirtemple, something the Hasmoneans had not done in 125 years of their rule. If Herod wascounting the end of this period as his official appointment by Rome, which I date to39 , then it can be said that the Hasmoneans controlled the temple for 125 years. Teyrecaptured it in 164 from the forces of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and controlled it until

39 . Of course, if one follows the Schrer consensus procedure and reads the 125 yearsinclusively, this would support 40 as the year when Herod was appointed by Rome.


10/29


of their fathers.30hus, it was in 162 that the Hasmoneansfirst were acknowledged as authorities who could govern accordingto traditional Jewish law. Subsequently, Judas behaved as if he had

such authority over a sovereign stateas exemplified by his treatyof the Jewish nation with Rome.31

Tus, it would appear that Josephus own statements contradict his asser-tion in the very context where he gives the consular year for the beginningof Herods reign in Jerusalem. Nonetheless, the Schrer consensus couldhold that the data given by Josephus here were reckoned by inclusive reck-

oning, making no conflict. However, that Josephus was not using inclusivereckoning and that these data should be seen as reporting actual years isdemonstrated by three more considerations.

First, Josephus also contradicts his own consular year for Herods con-quest of Jerusalem by his chronology of the high priests.32He states thatPompey reinstated Hyrcanus II as high priest in 63 and Hyrcanusreigned twenty-four more years (to 39 ), followed by Antigonus reignof three years and three months (or three years and six months).33Te totalis twenty-seven years, three months (or six months). Since Hyrcanus wouldhave been reinstated in September (ishri) 63 , Antigonus would havebeen executed in December 36 (or March 35 ).34Tis fits well intothe sequence of events if Herod conquered Jerusalem in September 36 .Te three (or six) additional months would have been the time needed

to take Antigonus to Antony, for Antony to receive Herods bribe andrequest that Antigonus be killed, and to arrange for Antigonus execution.Even if the account of Herods bribe to Antony is discounted as part ofJosephus anti-Herodian, pro-Hasmonean polemic, it is unlikely that Anti-gonus was immediately executed upon the conquest of Jerusalem, making

30) Josephus,Ant.12.382; cf. 1 Macc 6:59.31) Josephus,Ant.12.414-419; 1 Macc 8.32) Tis argument was first adduced by Filmer, Reign of Herod, 287.33) Josephus, Ant.20.244-245 reports three years and three months, Ant.14.97 reportsthree years and six months. Filmer does not note the discrepancy.34) Note that if Josephus was using inclusive reckoning, Antigonus reign would have lastedfrom ishri 40 to ishri 38 , and he would have been executed in December 38 or March 37 . However, the Schrer consensus holds that Herod conquered Jerusalem

on 10 ishri 37 , too late to have been during Antigonus lifetime if inclusive reckoningwas employed by Josephus.


11/29


12/29


13/29


the events between the eclipse and the Passover during the year of Herodsdeath (see discussion below), and seven months appears to be an excessiveamount of time for these to have taken place, even if one discounts some

of Josephus discussion of these events as tainted by Josephus rhetoricaland ideological tendencies.

Te Schrer consensus holds the eclipse to be the one of March 13,4 . Tis also presents a problem for Herods age, since he would havebeen only 67 or 68 in 4 . But there are more pressing problems for thisdate. Josephus reports the following events surrounding Herods death:43

1. he day before the eclipse Herod had two prominent Jewish rabbisburnt alive for tearing down a golden eagle he had erected over thetemples eastern gate.

2. he day after the eclipse Herods chronic illness worsened, and his phy-sicians tried many remedies but were not able to reverse his decline.

3. On the advice of his physicians, Herod traveled from Jericho toCallirrhoe, east of the Dead Sea, to bathe in the mineral waters.

4. When the treatment at Callirrhoe failed Herod returned to Jericho.5. Now acknowledging that he was dying, Herod sent messengers to

summon prominent Jewish elders from all areas of his kingdom.His plan was to place them in custody and order their executionwhen he died. his would ensure that there was mourning (insteadof celebration) following his death.

6. Soon after the elders arrived, Herod received letters from Romegiving him authority to execute his son Antipater for the murderof Pheroras and other treasonous acts. Herod had Antipater killedimmediately.

7. Five days later Herod died.8. Herod had ordered that his burial be at Herodium, about twenty-

three miles from Jericho. Arrangements for the funeral procession

were begun after Herod died. Before it began the crown jewels androyal regalia were brought from Jerusalem. he military throughoutHerods realm as well as relatives gathered for the procession. Spices totreat the body, requiring 500 domestics to carry them, were acquired.

,Ant.1.647). For Barnes argument to make sense one must read nearly(/) in very broad terms, in which case Josephus notice is useless for decidingbetween 4 and 1 for Herods death.43) Josephus,Ant.17.156-191.


14/29


9. Following Herods burial there was the normal seven-day periodof mourning (Num 19:11-12).

10. After the end of the mourning period there was the customary

feast in honor of the dead.11. After the funeral feast was over Archelaus as the new king held

an audience for the people. He made changes in the ranks of themilitary, conferring promotions on some. He liberated many menmade prisoners by his father. He decided a number of legal cases.He also did many other things.44 hese activities must haverequired at least several days.

12. he Passover came and immediately afterward, Archelaus left forRome to have his authority to rule confirmed by Augustus.45

Unless one were to hold that Josephus account of this period was simplymanufactured from whole cloth by him or his sources (which would meanthat the Schrer consensus is as weak as any other proposal, since it alsodepends on at least some of the events, such as the eclipse, having hap-pened), we must examine his account of this period closely to see whetheror not it could fit into the twenty-nine day period between the eclipse of4 and the following Passover. Martin estimated that these events wouldrequire a minimum of fifty-four days between the eclipse and the Passoverif every event outlined above were accomplished as quickly as possible.46

44) Josephus,Ant.17.233.45) Barnes, Te Date of Herods Death, 207-209 argues that since Archelaus could nothave arrived in Rome until May or later, and since Josephus reports that Gaius Caesar waspresent in Rome when Archelaus was before Augustus (War2.25;Antiquities17.229), thiscould not have taken place in mid-1 . According to Barnes, Gaius had to have left Romein early 1 . However, Barnes reconstruction of Gaius movements depends on a highlyspeculative synchronization of the reports about Gaius in Dio, Orosius, Pliny and Sueto-

nius. Not only does he not consider whether or not all of these sources are completelyaccurate in their reports about Gaius, but he must admit that there are no temporal indica-tors of Gaius movements. In addition, he tries to argue (n. 6) that Gaius may have arrivedin Syria earlier than January 1, 1 , but has only supposition to substantiate his claim. Inaddition, Barnes argues that this had to happen when Gaius was first made one of Augus-tus counselors, and he again cites Dio, who notes that Gaius was introduced into the Sen-ate in 5 . However, Dio is noting when Gaius entered the Senate, and his notice doesnot say anything about Gaius being invited to be among a select group of counselors as

Josephus describes.46) Martin, Te Birth of Christ Recalculated, 29-34; Te Nativity and Herods Death,88-89. Even Barnes, who places Herods death sometime between December 5 and


15/29


However, Martin does not give any indication that he considered whetherany of these events might have been embellished by Josephus or by hisprimary source for Herods reign, Nicolaus of Damascus. Of the twelve

events enumerated above, the most likely candidates for rhetorical tinker-ing would have been Herods plan to execute the elders (#5) and the lavisharrangements for his funeral (#8).

Te account of Herods plot to ensure mourning at his death could betypical Josephan anti-Herodian rhetoric. However, the general character ofthis plot is in keeping with what is known about the cruel and bloodthirstyacts of Herod at the end of his reign. Even if it is exaggerated (e.g., Herod

planned on killing only a few elders, not the entire group), it is probablynot totally invented.

Te lavish arrangements for Herods funeral may have been embellishedby Nicolaus of Damascus, a close daily companion of Herod whose accountof his reign was unquestionably pro-Herodian. Tis might account forsome of the seemingly overblown lavishness of the funeral (i.e., the fetch-ing of the crown jewels, the large amount of spices and attendants), butcannot be completely fabricated. Surely for what amounted to a statefuneral the important military leaders as well as Herods relatives wouldhave been given the opportunity to be in attendance. Tus, while we mightdiscount some of the rhetorical flourishes of the account of Herods funeral,we can hardly discount the entire description as fictionalized.

Let us then tally the number of days needed to accommodate the events

between the eclipse and the Passover:

able 2. ally of Days Elapsed Between the Eclipse and Passover

Event Days Elapsed otal MinimumDays Elapsed

2. Herods physicians tried manyremedies.

1 day minimum (morelikely 2-3 weeks)47

1 (more likely 14-21)

3. ravel from Jericho to Callirrhoe(about 50 miles)

3 days minimum48 4

early April 4 in order to defend the Schrer consensus, admits that more than sixtydays are needed for all these events.47) Even with contemporary medicine, a number of days or even weeks are needed to know

in the case of serious maladies whether a particular therapy is efficacious.48) Tis would have been at the normal rate of travel. It may have taken longer givenHerods frail condition.


16/29


Event Days Elapsed otal MinimumDays Elapsed

4a. reatment at Callirrhoe 1 day minimum (morelikely 1 week or more)

5 (more likely 11 ormore)

4b. Return to Jericho 3 days minimum 8

5. he Jewish elders throughoutHerods realm are summoned

6 days minimum49 14

6. Herod receives permission to

execute Antipater and has himexecuted

1 day minimum 15

7. Herods death five days later 5 days 20

8. Funeral arrangements and funeral 5 days minimum50 25

9. Seven days of mourning 7 days 32

10. Feast in Herods honor 1 day 33

11. Archelaus initial governance 7 days 40

12. he Passover 1 day 41

Tus, at least forty-one days are needed for the events between the eclipseand the Passover. A more likely tally that would take into account reason-able medical practice by Herods physicians would add at least about three

weeks, bringing the tally to sixty-two days minimum. Tis fits well withinthe ninety-two days between the 1 eclipse and the Passover allowingfor a less compressed schedule than the absolute minimum assumed above.But even at the very rushed pace assumed for the events in the tally offorty-one days, the twenty-nine days between the 4 eclipse and thePassover is inadequate.

Moreover, the Schrer consensus requires that Josephus sources would

have had to take note of a relatively minor partial eclipse of 4 where at

able 2.(cont.)

49) It would have taken at least three days for the word to have reached the extremities ofHerods realm, and another three days for the most distant elders to travel to Herod, if theyleft immediately upon receiving the summons.50) Tis assumes most of Herods family and military officers were within two or three daystravel of Herodium and that Josephus or Nicolaus exaggerated the procession. Under thisscenario Herods family and officers traveled directly to Herodium while the procession

took place with only a few family and officers who were present with Herod when he died.If the account is followed as narrated in Josephus, add at least another three days.


17/29


18/29


19/29


question arises, What does Luke mean by about thirty years of age?Does he mean closer to thirty than to thirty-one or twenty-nine? Or isLuke using about to mean something less specific such as closer to thirty

than to twenty or forty?Luke reports ages of people in four instances: Luke 2:42; 3:26; 8:42;

Acts 4:22.57One of these gives Jesus exact age when he attended the Pass-over in Jerusalem with his parents (Luke 2:42). Te other simply tells usthat the man whom Peter healed in the temple was more than forty yearsold (, Acts 4:22). How-ever, Luke 8:42 is very similar to Luke 3:26. It states that a synagogue ruler

had a daughter who was about twelve years old (). Now,it would appear in choosing to report her as about twelve, Luke isattempting to be as accurate as possible. He means something like closerto twelve than to eleven or thirteen, since he could have chosen a moregeneral description if he only meant to indicate that she was in early ado-lescence. But, in choosing to give us an age, he is implying that she wasclose to twelve, but not exactly twelve, or he is implying that he had agoodbut not exactidea of what her age was (within a year or so). Ifthis case is taken as indicative of Lukes practice, this would indicate thatin Luke 3:26 he is telling us that Jesus was within a year of being thirtyyears of age during iberius fifteenth year. Terefore, a more probable dateof birth for Jesus is in late 2 , making him about 30 1/2 years old at hisbaptism, and implying that Herod died in the first quarter of 1 .58

Admittedly, this is not a strong argument, since the Greek or areonly indicating approximations. However, the probability appears to weighin favor of Jesus being between thirty and thirty-two years of age at hisbaptism, not between thirty-three and thirty-five.59

57) I am counting only the times Luke the narrator reports someones age and omittingtimes when he is quoting the speech of others (e.g., Acts 7:23, Stephens speech).58) According to this reconstruction, Jesus could not have been born in early 1 , sinceHerod was absent from Jerusalem after about January 10, 1 (see Matt 2:1-9).59) One could, perhaps understand thirty-three or thirty-four as about thirty if a veryloose use of is assumed. However, it is hard to see how thirty-five could be aboutthirty in preference to about forty. Given the biblical significance of the number forty,

one wonders why Luke would not have chosen that number if Jesus was close to thirty-fiveyears of age at his baptism.


20/29


Te Reigns of Herods Successors

But what of the reigns of Herods successors? Archelaus reigned over Judea,Samaria and Idumea until 6 , Antipas over Galilee and Perea until thesecond year of Gaius (38/39 ), and Philip over Gaulanitis until his deathin the twentieth year of iberius (33/34 ).

Herod Archelaus and Herod Antipas

What of the reigns of Archelaus and Antipas? Archelaus was deposed asking of Judea, Samaria and Idumea in the tenth year of his reign and exiled

to Vienna in Gaul by Augustus in 6 .60Tis means that Archelaus reck-oned his reign from 4 . Likewise, Antipas lost the tetrarchy of Galileeand Perea in the second year of Gaius (38/39 ) and the latest coinsminted under his authority are dated to his forty-third year. Tis meansthat he claimed to have begun his reign in 5/4 . Why would Archelausand Antipas claim to have reigned from 4 if Herod did not die in thatyear? Is this not proof that Herod must have died in 4 and not 1 ?

Let us examine the events involving Herods sons in the years precedinghis death.61Some years before his death Herod had named his son Anti-pater as his heir. However a little over two years before Herods death Anti-pater murdered his uncle, Herods youngest brother Pheroras, tetrarchof Galilee. Antipaters plot was discovered, and Archelaus was named asHerods successor in place of Antipater. It would be seven months before

Antipater, who was in Rome, would be informed that he had been chargedwith murder. Late in the next year he would be placed on trial beforeVarus, governor of Syria. Herod was reluctant to condemn Antipater, buteventually Herod intercepted some of Antipaters correspondence indicat-ing further treasonous conspiracies. Herod then sent ambassadors to Rome.Tey returned a few days before Herods death with permission fromAugustus to execute Antipater. At some time during his last year Herod

wrote a will disinheriting Archelaus and granting the kingdom to Antipas.62

However, in his last will he once again left the kingdom to Archelaus.63

60) Josephus,Ant.17.342 (War2.111 reads ninth year); Dio 55.22.6.61) Tis treatment is similar to, but draws slightly different conclusions that that of Filmer,Reign of Herod, 296-297.62) Josephus,Ant.17.146.63) Josephus,Ant.17.188-189.


21/29


Several interesting passages in Josephus illuminate this period. First,Josephus reports that Herod testified before Varus that:

I confess to you, Varus, the great folly of which I was guilty. For I provoked those sonsof mine to act against me, and cut off their just expectations for the sake of Antipater.Indeed, what kindness did I do them, that could equal what I have done toAntipater,to whom I have, in a manner, yielded up my royal authority, while I am alive, and whomI have openly named for the successor to my dominions in my will. . .64

Herod testified that Antipater was not only his successor, but his co-regent!

In his reply and defense to his father Antipater made the same claim.

Indeed, what was there that could possibly provoke me against you? Could the hopeof being king do it? I was already a king. Could I suspect hatred from you? No. Wasnot I beloved by you? And what other fear could I have? No, by preserving you safe, I

was a terror to others. Did I lack money? No, for who was able to expend so much asmyself ? Indeed, father, had I been the most execrable of all mankind, and had I hadthe soul of the most cruel wild beast, must I not have been overcome with the benefits

you had bestowed upon me? Whom, as you yourself say, you brought; whom youpreferred before so many of your sons; whom you made a king in your own lifetime, and,by the vast magnitude of the other advantages you bestowed on me, you made me anobject of envy.65

Tese statement are made during speeches reported by Josephus, andtherefore not to be taken as verbatim quotes. More likely these quotations

are what Josephus or his sources thought was likely to have been said.Terefore, we must examine how likely it is that both Herod and Antipateractually thought that Antipater had been given a measure of royal author-ity. In fact, in book 16 of Antiquities Josephus treats the succession ofHerods sons several times. For instance, he notes that Augustus forbadeHerod from naming his sons as his successors.66As a result of this orderHerod reminded his subjects that they should acknowledge him alone as

king, but that he was delivering the honors of royalty to his sons.67Tus,Josephus implies that Antipater was not de jurecoregent, but de factoexer-cised power akin to a coregent. His frustration about not being legallynamed coregent that Josephus discusses at the beginning ofAntiquities17

64) Josephus, War1.625.65) Josephus, War1.631-632.66)Ant.16.129; War1.461.67)Ant.16.133-134.


22/29


appears to confirm this. Terefore, Josephus consistent concern inAntiq-uities16-17 about the position of Herods sons in succession to their fatherlends credence to the statements about Antipaters position as already

king in Jewish War 1. Josephus or his sources may have invented thespeeches of Herod and Antipater, but they based them on the facts asthey knew themthat Herod had indeed yielded some of his authority toAntipater.

Given that Archelaus was named Herods successor a little more thantwo years before he died, it is quite probable that Archelaus was also madede facto(but not de jure) coregent with Herod at that time. Indeed, there is

evidence of this. When Archelaus went to Rome to have his authorityconfirmed by Augustus he was opposed by his enemies. Josephus reportsthat they brought what appeared to be contradictory charges. One chargewas that Herod did not appoint Archelaus king until he was demented anddying.68Te other charge was the Archelaus had exercised royal authorityfor some time.69Tese two charges are not as contradictory as they seem.Archelaus was named Herods successor about two years before his death,and may have exercised royal authority until a brief period before Herodsdeath when he had been disinherited. Ten, while he was dying Herod,when many thought he was no longer of sound mind, once again rewrotehis will to leave the kingdom to Archelaus.

Terefore, once Archelaus was confirmed as king to succeed his father,he may well have begun to reckon his reign from the time that he was

named successorsomewhat more than two years before his fathers death.If Herod died in early 1 , then Archelaus counted his reign from some-time in mid-to-late 4 . Terefore, the commencing of Archelaus reignin 4 is not an indication that Herod died in that year. Ultimately, it isnot important whether Archelaus ever actually reigned as de factocoregentwith Herod. What is important is the implications in Josephus that Arche-laus may well have had substantial motives to antedate his reign to about

two years before Herods death in an attempt to bolster himself as Herodslegitimate heir.

Antipas may well have antedated his reign, also. Since Antipas unclePheroras reign as tetrarch of Galilee ended with his murder in 4 , Anti-pas may have sought legitimacy by reckoning his reign from that time.Alternatively, Herod may have moved quickly following Pheroras death

68) Josephus, War2.31;Ant.17.238.69) Josephus, War2.26.


23/29


and in 4 may have actually named Antipas to inherit Galilee in placeof Pheroras, and this is the date that Antipas used as the beginning of hisreign. Tis might explain why Herod briefly turned to Antipas as his heir

in his penultimate will, since he had already shown him favor by grantinghim territory to rule.

Herod Philip

According to the currently published Greek texts of Josephus, Philip diedin the twentieth year of iberius (33/34 ) after a reign of thirty-seven

years. Tis would have placed him on the throne in 4 . However, asearly as 1966 Filmer argued that a number had dropped out and that theytext should probably read twenty-second year.70In the late ninetieth cen-tury Riess reported that the Franciscan monk Molkenbuhr claimed to haveseen the reading twenty-second year of iberius in a 1517 Parisian copyand an 1841 Venetian copy of Josephus.71While Barnes rightly dismissedthis in 1968 as ill-attested,72further evidence has come to light to confirm

Filmers suspicions. Ten,

in 1995 David W. Beyer reported to the Society of Biblical Literature his personalexamination in the British Museum of forty-six editions of JosephusAntiquitiespub-lished before 1700 among which twenty-seven texts, all but three published before1544 read twenty-second year of iberius, while not a single edition published priorto 1544 read twentieth year of iberius. Likewise in the Library of Congress fivemore editions read the twenty-second year, while none prior to 1544 records thetwentieth year. It was also found that the oldest versions of the text give variantlengths of the reign for Philip of 32 and 36 years. But if we allow for a full thirty-seven-year reign, then the twenty-second year of iberius (35/36 ) points to 1 (1 year + 36 years = 37 years) as the year of the death of Herod.73

Moreover, the Niese edition of Josephus lists twenty-second year as thereading in the Latin version of Josephus (produced in the fourth to sixth

centuries), and notes that as early as the sixteenth century Joseph Scaliger

70) Filmer, Reign of Herod, 298.71)Florian Riess, Das Geburtsjahr Christi(Freiburg: Herder, 1880), according to Finegan,Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 301, 518 and n. 65.72) Barnes, Te Date of Herods Death, 205.73) Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 301, 518. Beyers report is David W. Beyer,Josephus Reexamined: Unraveling the wenty-Second Year of iberius (Annual Meetingof the Society of Biblical Literature, November 19, 1995).


24/29


25/29


26/29


Since the seventh year of Herod must correlate to the year of the Battle ofActium in 31 , and Herods eighteenth year must correlate to Caesarspresence in Syria in 20 , the Schrer consensus must maintain that in

AntiquitiesJosephus is counting Herods regnal years from the conquest ofJerusalem and not from his appointment by the Romans. Tis means thatthe reference in War1.401 must be a mistake made by Josephus.

However, a closer examination ofAntiquities20.250 demonstrates thatJosephus was reckoning Herods years from his appointment by theRomans.79Tis is shown by Josephus noting that there were twenty-eighthigh priests from the times of Herod until the destruction of the temple

in 70 . When Herod conquered Jerusalem he appointed Ananel to behigh priest.80Counting high priests beginning with Ananel and endingwith Pannias, the last high priest before itus conquered Jerusalem, therewere twenty-seven high priests.81 Tis means that Josephus was includingAntigonus in his reckoning of twenty-eight high priests during the reign ofHerod.o confirm this, note that above it was demonstrated that Antigo-nus reigned in Jerusalem as high priest from ishri 39 to ishri 36. Tere-fore, Josephus began the times of Herod with Herods appointment byRome three years earlier than his conquest of Jerusalem, and the beginninghis reign according to official regnal years overlapped the high priesthoodof Antigonus by about two years (1 ishri 38 -10 ishri 36 ). How-ever, if one were to date the times of Herod to the his appointment bythe Romans according to the Schrer consensus (40 or perhaps 39

in official regnal years) this would mean that there were 110 or 109, not107 years from the times of Herod to itus conquest of Jerusalem.But Herod was actually appointed late in 39 (since he came to

Rome in the winter,Ant.14.376). Since Herod was appointed by a Gentilepower, he probably began to count his official regnal years as beginning on

Josephus did this elsewhere. Tus, they argue that the twenty-seven years from Pompeysconquest of Jerusalem to Herods conquest was actually only twenty-six years (Ant.14.488);that the spring of 31 was actually Herods sixth year, though Josephus counts it as hisseventh (Ant.15.121); and that there were only 106 years between Herods conquest of

Jerusalem and itus conquest, though Josephus counts it as 107 (Ant.20.250).79) Tis was first noted by Filmer, Reign of Herod, 296.80) Josephus, Ant. 15.22. Note that in his treatment of this passage, Bernegger doesnot notice the import of Josephus statement about the number of high priests during these107 years. (Bernegger, Herods Death, 529-530.)81) James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile(Minneapolis:Fortress, 2004) 394-490, 492.


27/29


28/29


With this understanding there is no need to claim that the reference inWar1.401 is a mistake. Instead, it is now clear that in WarJosephus num-bered Herods regnal years from the beginning of his reign in Jerusalem,

and they would total three less years. Tus, Josephus reports that Herodreigned . . . since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years;but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven.84

Josephus total of twenty-eight high priests from the times of Heroduntil the destruction of the temple means that inAntiquitiesJosephus can-nothave been reckoning the years of Herods reign from the beginning ofhis rule in Jerusalem. Terefore, the Schrer consensus is once again called

into doubt, since it relies on just such a reckoning to make sense of thechronological data reported by Josephus in Antiquities. When combinedwith the other problems that face the Schrer consensus, there is a lesserprobability that it is to be preferred over a more traditional dating ofHerods reign ending in 1 .

Conclusion

Te consensus about the reign of Herod that is built around Schrersinterpretation of Josephus is fraught with difficulties. It fails to fit any ofthe verifiable chronological data external to Josephus and must resort tounlikely readings of Josephus chronological data and dismissal of otherdata as mistaken.85A reexamination of the data demonstrates that Herod

actually reigned from 39 to his death in early 1 . Te only readjust-ment required by this revised chronology is that Josephus made mistakesin Antiquities 14.389, 487 when reporting the consular and Olympiandating of the beginning of Herods reign. (In the case ofAntiquities14.384,

84) Josephus,Ant.17.191.85) I.e., asserting Herods reign of thirty-seven years was actually thirty-six or that the 107years from the times of Herod to the conquest of Jerusalem in 70 were actually 106.o substantiate this, it has been claimed by Schrer and those that followed him that Jose-phus used inclusive reckoning of years, counting both the first and the last years in thetally (e.g., Maier, Te Date of the Nativity and the Chronology of Jesus Life, 116). It isinteresting to note that the Vermes and Millar edition of Schrer (1973 edition, 1.326-327)rejects the concept of inclusive reckoning as proposed in the original edition, (1896 edition,1.200-201). An example of the Schrer consensus simply dismissing data that does not

agree with it is that of War1.401fifteen being simply a mistake, without proposing amechanism by which the mistake was made.


29/29


even the defenders of the Schrer consensus concede that there is a mistakein at least the Olympian date given by Josephus.) Apparently, Josephuscalculated these dates one year too early and then assigned them to the

wrong consular years. Since these two events were clearly three years apart,the mistake in the first passage (Ant.14.389) lead to the parallel mistake inthe second (Ant.13.487).

Once the correct dates for Herods reign are understood, all of the dataexternal to Josephus as well as all the other data given by Josephus arein perfect harmony, and one can construct the chronology of his reign asfollows:

able 5. A Chronology of Herods Reign

Date Event

Late 39 Herod appointed king by the Romans

ishri 38 Beginning of Herods first regnal year

10 ishri 36 Herod conquers Jerusalem

December 36 or March 35 Antigonus executed

ishri 35 Beginning of Herods first regnal year inJerusalem

20 Herod begins work on the temple in Jerusalem

Late 19 or early 20 Work on emple building completed

12 Work on emple precincts completed

11 or 10 Work on Caesarea Sebaste completed

4 Murder of Herods brother Pheroras;

Antipater deposed as Herods heir;

Archelaus named Herods heir

2 Jesus born

First quarter of 1 Antipater executed; Herod dies

Documents

Andrew Steinmann - ¿When Did Herod the Great Reign